| Author |
Message |
    
Joso
Citizen
Username: Joso
Post Number: 34
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 11:29 am: | 
|
Mr. Rosner,
With the exception of the incredibly bright lights, almost everything about Waterlands park is a mess..rotten or missing benches, antiquated playground equipment, falling down fences, broken pavement, NO RESTROOM facilities, etc. Why is this most heavily used recreation area in such a sorry state? It is an embarrassment to the town. Was there ever any thought to using some of the increased tax revenue from the the construction of the Gaslight Commons to upgrade the park. Also has there ever been any thought to construct a pedestrian bridge over the tracks at the old, and never used cemetary park on Valley. This would greatly improve pedestrian access to Waterlands.
Thanks for your thoughts.
|
Bets
Citizen
Username: Bets
Post Number: 194
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 11:50 am: |
|
Um, what increased tax revenue? Gaslight Commons is PILOTed. |
Openspacer
Citizen
Username: Openspacer
Post Number: 28
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 1:40 pm: |
|
The Coalition to Preserve South Orange has been in contact with the people that run the Gaslight Commons asking them for help in maintaining the surrounding parks.
They have not agreed to anything yet but they have not said no.
Occupancy in the commons is low at this point with the one bedrooms being the least sought after. And, according to the Star-Ledger the luxury apartment rental market is in a slump. Perhaps South Orange should re-think the 400 plus additional apartments being proposed.
Hopefully, once it is fully occupied, they will contribute to our parks.
Unfortunately, other parks in South Orange could use some sprucing up as well. South Orange spends three times what it spends on recreation on debt service. South Orange needs to realize that the recreation department is not in the business of parks. It is in the quality of life business.
Dan Shelffo
|
Dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 54
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Yes, by offering a PILOT program to Gaslight Commons, the Village not only shut the tax revenue to the schools, but it also shut off the upward potential for taxes to the Village. I cannot believe that anyone has to go begging to them for money for the park. Its pathetic. |
Kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 379
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Wasn't there just an article in the Gaslight saying that improvements to Waterlands Park are planned as a memorial to Chris Faughnan? |
Tiffanymarie
Citizen
Username: Tiffanymarie
Post Number: 13
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 1, 2002 - 10:56 am: |
|
Hi. Does anyone know if they are planning any moderate income housing? |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 53
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 1, 2002 - 11:43 am: |
|
JOSO: The village over one year ago hired a firm to do a master plan for all the village parks. It is supposed to be finished this summer. At that point we will decide to priortize projects and how much money will be spent.
I have not seen the final plans for the improvements being considered for the memorial but it does address some of the issues.
As for pedestrian bridges, it is an issue that the board raised a while back and some plans are being considered at various locations.
There are no plans by NJ Transit to build a walkway over the tracks. I have been trying to get NJ Transit to commit to making improvements to the train stations as well as adding more trains.
There is a recreation committee that was just formed to help deal with all these issues and make reccomendations based on the master plan and input from residents to help make these decisions. I would encourage you to find out when the next recreation meeting is scheduled and to go to the meeting and voice your concerns there too.
|
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 54
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 1, 2002 - 11:59 am: |
|
Bets, DGM: The PILOT agreement created more funds for the village not less. The amount the schools receive is exactly the same. The amount of taxes to be paid by Gaslight Commons increases every year by the same percentage as the municipal portion of the tax bill increases.
I could debate the merits of a PILOT all day long and there are arguments for and against them. I will only say that in this case, I think it was the right thing for S. Orange village.
Openspacer: I was very vocal in the meetings when the third street project was being proposed that improvements to the park should be part of the package. I would hope and think that when they reach a higher occupancy level that they will be more willing to help contribute to the cost of improving waterlands park.
I would also hope that NJ Transit would make a contributions since they are own the land at the edge of the tracks and they are always talking about being a "vital part of the community". |
Joso
Citizen
Username: Joso
Post Number: 35
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 1, 2002 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Mr. Rosner,
Thank you for your response. It is good to hear that these things are being considered. However, can't there at least be a porto-san at the Waterlands now so kids do not have to go into the woods, as mine have had to do on occasions?
|
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 55
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 1, 2002 - 2:12 pm: |
|
I will look into that. Sounds reasonable. |
Bets
Citizen
Username: Bets
Post Number: 195
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 12:05 am: |
|
Mr. Rosner, can you please address Tiffanymarie's question? Other than dumping the town's Mt. Laurel obligations onto to Orange, do the trustees plan any moderate income housing?
Thanks. |
Ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 413
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 9:17 am: |
|
If PILOT gives the village more money and the schools the same what is the advantage for the property owner? I must be missing something. |
Dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 55
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 10:00 am: |
|
As far as I know. It doesn't give the schools or the county anything more than they have now. Am I correct on that? |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 56
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 10:31 am: |
|
Bets: I have never heard it phrased as "dumping", nor do I agree with that terminology. However, there have been many discussion, but this is one issue that I am not sure would be given justice being explained on here by me. I would suggest that you request a meeting with either the village administrator or the village attorney for a full explanation of the Mt. Laurel obligaions or possilby come to a village meeting and ask the question to them there (Sept. 23rd at 8:00PM). |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 57
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 10:36 am: |
|
TiffanyMarie: I am not sure what you mean by moderate income housing. I know the definition of that can vary greatly. There are homes for sale which would be considered moderately priced. With the low interest rates today on fixed mortgages, a lot more homes have become "affordable". If you mean the kind of homes that have been built recently in Newark and in other areas, then I would say no, there are no plans. |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 58
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 10:52 am: |
|
Ashear, DGM: Here is how a PILOT helps the village financially. With the third stree project, the total taxes would have been around $1,000,000 with the village getting about $250,000 ($550,000 would go to the schools and $200,000 to the county). In this case, the village will be getting $500,000 (plus whatever the tax increase is each year). The dealership was paying significantly less, but I do not remember the amount.
For those that remembered, when Shop-Rite wanted to build a supermarket on the site of the auto dealership, there were a public outcry against it (I was not on the board at that time). The residents overwhelmingly seemed to want the zoning changed to residential so that if the dealership was sold there would not be another commercial development there. When a developer came along who offered to build a residential project and it met with appoval from many local residents. Also, the village had a study done by a professional consulting group which said the village needed more housing in the downtown area.
So why the project might have been larger than I had hoped it was smaller than what they had origianally proposed and I felt it was a good deal for the village. It was also beleived that there would be very few school-age children.
Also remember that after 20 years the PILOT agreemtent ends and they become a "regular" taxpaying entity. |
Openspacer
Citizen
Username: Openspacer
Post Number: 29
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 11:48 am: |
|
mrosner,
Are you saying that the Gaslight Commons will lower taxes and make South Orange a better place to live?
Dan Shelffo |
Ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 414
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 12:56 pm: |
|
So the Village gets $500,000, but you said the amount going to the schools stays the same. Where is the $550,000 the schools would have gotten comming from? What about the $200,000 that would have gone to the county. Do everyone else's tax bills just go up to cover the difference? Everyone in SOMA (for the schools) and Essex (for the county) or just people in the village? Sorry, I just don't get how this works. |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 59
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Openspacer: I think it helped to stabalize the taxes as much as possible in the current property tax system. To actually lower property taxes would take something dramatic at the state level.
As for making it a better place to live, I am not sure what that comment means. Better than having a car dealership in a residential neighborhood - yes. But I am guessing that is not what you meant.
|
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 60
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Ashear: The advanatage to the property owners is that if the village gets significantly more revenue (in this case over $250,000 than it would have otherwise received) it helps to keep the municipal tax rate stable.
The school budget did not change because of this development. It will probably be several years before there are any school age children living in the gaslight commons and the expected number is small.
As for the county, we get virtually no services or benefits from them. I do not see this affecting them one bit and by the way, the costs would be spread among every taxpayer in the county. The county signed off on this deal and they have signed off on similar deals with other developers. We have been subsidizing those deals and I never heard one person from S. Orange complain to the county or those towns. Now that we have done the same with the intent of helping the S. Orange taxpayer, I would have thought the complaiints would have been from residents outside the village (especially Maplewood).
By the way, are you from S. Orange or Maplewood (asking ashear). |